Death of the Suburbs: Part Nauseum

For decades, those who know best have been chronicling the death of the suburbs. In every new announcement of demographic data, they find evidence that people are “moving back” to the core cities, even though they never moved away. The coverage of the latest Bureau of the Census city population estimates set a new standard. “Cities Grow at Suburb’s Expense During Recession” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News headlined “Census Shows Cities are Growing More Quickly than Suburbs.”

Robert E. Lang, co-director of Washington’s Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech noted that inner suburbs that have developed transit systems grew more last year and that others will begin to grow faster in the future. Lang specifically cites the Washington, DC suburbs of Alexandria and Arlington. William Frey of the Brookings Institution told Time magazine that the cities are “a lot better” able to withstand the “ups and downs” in the economy.

This is something for which no evidence was reported, but it was the “inside-the-beltway” (Washington) spin that Time and other media have been eager to adopt. Even the latest government numbers still showed the suburbs with a growth rate more than 20 percent above that of the core cities.

Premature Death Syndrome?

Despite the spin, an analysis of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population indicates that the nation’s suburbs are in no danger of being displaced as growth leaders by the central city. To start with, suburbs represent nearly 75 percent of the nation’s major metropolitan population. Further, the overwhelming evidence is that people continue to move out of the core cities in far larger numbers than they are moving in (net domestic migration).

In 2008, the core cities accounted for 23 percent of growth in the largest metropolitan areas. This is up from the decade annual average of 16 percent (Note 1). But this improvement is not the result of more people moving to the core cities but a huge decline in domestic migration, which has driven suburban growth for decades. Thus, the story in the latest census estimates is not that the cities are growing faster. It is rather that people are generally staying put amidst the steepest economic decline since the Great Depression. Stunted hopes, not a sudden enthusiasm for urban living, have driven the relative change.

Table 1

Metropolitan Area, Suburban and Core City Population: 2000-2008

Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000

Metropolitan Area

Suburbs

Core City

Metropolitan Area

2000

2008

Change

2000

2008

Change

2000

2008

Change

Share of Growth

Atlanta

4,282

5,376

1,094

3,861

4,838

977

421

538

117

11%

Austin

1,266

1,653

387

602

895

293

664

758

94

24%

Baltimore

2,557

2,667

110

1,909

2,030

122

649

637

(12)

-11%

Birmingham

1,053

1,118

64

811

889

77

242

229

(13)

-21%

Boston

4,402

4,523

121

3,813

3,914

101

589

609

20

16%

Buffalo

1,169

1,124

(45)

877

853

(24)

292

271

(21)

Charlotte

1,340

1,702

362

770

1,014

244

570

687

117

32%

Chicago

9,118

9,570

452

6,222

6,717

494

2,896

2,853

(43)

-9%

Cincinnati

2,015

2,155

141

1,683

1,822

138

331

333

2

1%

Cleveland

2,148

2,088

(60)

1,671

1,655

(17)

477

434

(43)

Columbus

1,620

1,773

154

904

1,018

114

716

755

39

26%

Dallas-Fort Worth

5,196

6,300

1,104

4,006

5,020

1,014

1,190

1,280

89

8%

Denver

2,194

2,507

313

1,638

1,908

270

556

599

43

14%

Detroit

4,458

4,425

(32)

3,512

3,513

1

945

912

(33)

Hartford

1,151

1,191

40

1,027

1,066

40

124

124

(0)

0%

Houston

4,740

5,728

989

2,761

3,486

725

1,978

2,242

264

27%

Indianapolis

1,531

1,715

184

749

917

168

782

798

16

9%

Jacksonville

1,126

1,313

187

390

505

116

737

808

71

38%

Kansas City

1,843

2,002

159

1,442

1,563

122

401

439

38

24%

Las Vegas

1,393

1,866

473

909

1,307

399

484

558

74

16%

Los Angeles

12,401

12,873

472

8,697

9,039

342

3,704

3,834

130

28%

Louisville

1,165

1,245

80

613

687

74

552

557

6

7%

Memphis

1,208

1,224

16

518

554

36

690

670

(20)

-130%

Miami

5,027

5,415

388

4,663

5,002

338

363

413

50

13%

Milwaukee

1,502

1,549

47

905

945

40

597

604

8

16%

Minneapolis-St. Paul

2,982

3,230

248

2,599

2,847

248

383

383

0

0%

Nashville

1,318

1,551

233

772

954

183

546

596

51

22%

New Orleans

1,316

1,134

(182)

832

822

(10)

484

312

(172)

New York

18,353

19,007

653

10,338

10,643

305

8,016

8,364

348

53%

Oklahoma City

1,098

1,206

108

590

654

64

508

552

44

41%

Orlando

1,657

2,055

398

1,464

1,824

360

193

231

37

9%

Philadelphia

5,693

5,838

146

4,179

4,391

212

1,514

1,447

(66)

-46%

Phoenix

3,279

4,282

1,003

1,952

2,714

762

1,326

1,568

242

24%

Pittsburgh

2,429

2,351

(78)

2,095

2,041

(54)

334

310

(24)

Portland

1,936

2,207

271

1,406

1,650

244

530

558

28

10%

Providence

1,587

1,597

10

1,413

1,425

12

174

172

(2)

-23%

Raleigh

804

1,089

284

514

696

182

290

393

102

36%

Richmond

1,100

1,226

126

902

1,024

121

198

202

4

3%

Rochester

1,042

1,034

(8)

822

827

5

219

207

(13)

Riverside-San Bernardino

3,278

4,116

838

3,020

3,821

800

258

295

38

4%

Sacramento

1,809

2,110

301

1,399

1,646

247

409

464

55

18%

St. Louis

2,724

2,841

116

2,378

2,486

109

347

354

7

6%

Salt Lake City

973

1,116

143

791

934

143

182

182

(0)

0%

San Antonio

1,719

2,031

312

555

680

125

1,164

1,351

187

60%

San Diego

2,825

3,001

176

1,597

1,722

124

1,228

1,279

51

29%

San Francisco

4,137

4,275

137

3,360

3,466

106

778

809

31

23%

San Jose

1,740

1,819

79

841

871

29

899

948

50

63%

Seattle

3,052

3,345

292

2,489

2,746

258

564

599

35

12%

Tampa-St. Petersburg

2,404

2,734

329

2,100

2,393

293

304

341

37

11%

Tucson

849

1,012

163

359

470

111

489

542

52

32%

Virginia Beach

1,580

1,658

78

1,346

1,424

78

234

234

(0)

0%

Washington

4,821

5,358

537

4,249

4,766

517

572

592

20

4%

Total

152,409

166,323

13,914

109,318

121,097

11,778

43,090

45,226

2,136

15%

Population in 000s

City share column blank where both metropolitan area & city lost population

Metropolitan areas are named after their largest city or cities. The first city listed is the core city, except in Virginia Beach where the core city is Norfolk.

Italization indicates that core city was largely built out in 1960 and has annexed little or no territory.

Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data for county based metropolitan areas

On close examination, the recent better relative performance of the cities stemmed from three factors, none of which involved people moving to them from the suburbs or anywhere else in the nation.

(1) Decline in Domestic Migration

Suburban growth has declined because the economic downturn has reduced the number of residents moving from one part of the country to another (domestic migrants). In 2008, net domestic migration fell to 30 percent below the decade average. The suburbs and exurbs were the largest gainers from domestic migration in past and have thus declined the most. This is not surprising, given the fact that a major part of subprime mortgage crisis that precipitated the Panic of 2008 (or the Great Recession) was the granting of mortgages to under-qualified households who stretched their financial resources to move to places where housing was the least expensive. Many of these households defaulted on their mortgages, were forced out of their houses and moved away.

Nonetheless, as a new Bureau of the Census report indicated, in each of 12 large metropolitan areas analyzed the percentage growth in the exurbs was greater than in the core city. So even in the worst of times, the basic claim by the “inside-the-beltway” analysts and the media were totally off-base.

The slowdown in net domestic migration also has pushed up city population growth. Fewer people moved away from the core cities than in the past. This, however, is different from people moving into the cities from the suburbs.

It seems likely that stronger domestic migration gains will be restored to the suburbs when the economy improves. In the meantime, the growth rates of both the core cities and the suburbs have converged toward the natural rate of growth (births minus deaths).

(2) Net International Migration

County level data indicates that net international migration was only 9 percent below the decade average in 2008. The core cities have routinely attracted more international migrants than the suburbs. This, combined with a decline in domestic migration among metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population helped to improve the growth rate of the core counties relative to the suburbs.

(3) Not Adding Up: City Estimates

Putting it frankly, the births minus deaths, plus domestic migration and international migration fall far short of the increases being reported in the core cities. This can be shown by examining the only core cities for which full “component of population change” data is available (natural increase, net domestic migration and net international migration). The Bureau of the Census does not release component data at any level of government below counties or their equivalents. In five cases, cities are fully consolidated with counties.

The consolidated city-counties are New York (an amalgamation of five counties, or boroughs), Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore and Washington (DC). Some places referred to as consolidated city-county governments are not genuine amalgamations, because some separate cities remain, such as in Miami, Jacksonville, Louisville and Indianapolis. An examination of the components of population in the five genuinely consolidated city-county jurisdictions reveals huge unallocated discrepancies (the Bureau of the Census term is “residuals”).

Combining the births, deaths, net domestic migration and net international migration all of the five cities produces a population loss. The difference is the unallocated residual, which is huge in four of the five city-counties and a number of others and is small in most places that are not core cities.

This unexplained “residual” is largely the result of the Bureau of the Census population “challenge” program. Four of the five consolidated cities have mounted successful challenges to their estimates and have thus added significantly to their populations. In San Francisco and Washington, the challenges added more population than the 2000-2007 gain (2008 challenges are yet to be filed). In New York, the challenges amounted to 80 percent of the 2000-2007 growth (Table 2).

Table 2

Unallocated Residuals & Estimates Challenges : 2000-2007

Fully Consolidated City-County Jurisdictions

Change in Population: 2000-2007

Unallocated Residual: 2000-2007

Successful Census Challenges: 2000-2007

With Successful Challenges

Baltmore

(8,400)

34,700

56,400

New York

294,500

325,000

236,100

San Francisco

21,700

37,400

34,200

Washington

16,100

19,900

31,500

Subtotal

323,900

417,000

358,200

No Successful Challenges

Philadelphia

(65,200)

(6,800)

0

Unallocated Residual: Population Change not accounted for in births, deaths, international migration or domestic migration

Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data.

This is just the beginning of the story. More than one-half of the core city growth in the decade has been attributable to similar challenges. In contrast, only three percent of suburban population growth has been attributable to challenges. It does seem curious that the Bureau of the Census that has produced such erroneous estimates in places like New York (230,000), Atlanta’s Fulton County (110,000) and St. Louis (40,000), missed not a soul Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland, Phoenix and a host of other core cities and thousands of counties. The next census (2010) may be a good gauge of the challenge program’s accuracy, although it is not beyond imagining that anti-suburban elements may seek to politicize the results.

Inner Suburbs

Further, the theory of inner suburban growth is left wanting, even in the Washington area. Despite their transit improvements, between 2000 and 2008, Arlington and Alexandria lost 45,000 domestic migrants, both losing in every year except 2008 (in both cases, additions due to challenges were greater than the 2000-2007 population increase). Washington’s other inner suburbs, Fairfax County, Montgomery County and Prince Georges County are served by the same transit system (largely paid for by the taxpayers around the country), yet between them have lost another 240,000 domestic migrants between 2000 and 2008. On the other hand, the second ring suburbs have gained 112,000 migrants and the exurbs have gained 104,000 (See Figure). During the last year, the inner suburbs grew at approximately one-third the rate of the outer suburbs. And despite the subprime induced distress in the exurbs, the inner suburbs could achieve no better a rate. Analysts may trade anecdotes at coffee houses about people moving to the city or the inner suburbs from the exurbs or beyond. However, the Bureau of the Census data is clear. For every anecdote that that moves in, more than one moves out.

The Numbers Tell it All

When the 2008 county and metropolitan area population estimates were published a few months ago, we showed that the central counties (Note 2) continue to lose residents at a rapid rate. Among the metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population, central counties lost 4.6 million domestic migrants, while suburban counties gained 2.0 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2008. Over the past year, the core counties lost a net 314,000 domestic migrants while the suburbs gained 197,000 (Table 3).

Table 3

Domestic Migration: Core and Suburban Counties: 2000-2008

Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population

Latest Year: 2007-2008

Decade: 2000-2008

Metropolitan Area

Suburban

Core

Total

Suburban

Core

Total

Atlanta

32,925

10,126

43,051

395,836

(1,749)

394,087

Austin

24,216

10,825

35,041

156,890

41,142

198,032

Baltimore

(6,000)

(6,352)

(12,352)

32,952

(67,923)

(34,971)

Birmingham

5,658

(2,356)

3,302

48,700

(25,755)

22,945

Boston

(2,889)

(5,372)

(8,261)

(154,086)

(99,006)

(253,092)

Buffalo

(358)

(4,127)

(4,485)

(5,933)

(48,232)

(54,165)

Charlotte

21,327

13,060

34,387

125,223

93,513

218,736

Chicago

921

(43,031)

(42,110)

160,765

(667,507)

(506,742)

Cincinnati

3,803

(7,372)

(3,569)

65,905

(85,538)

(19,633)

Cleveland

861

(15,757)

(14,896)

14,726

(141,445)

(126,719)

Columbus

3,325

(826)

2,499

64,211

(40,624)

23,587

Dallas-Fort Worth

62,022

(18,847)

43,175

514,011

(254,016)

259,995

Denver

13,940

3,932

17,872

86,262

(50,881)

35,381

Detroit

(17,020)

(45,140)

(62,160)

(53,478)

(273,695)

(327,173)

Hartford

379

(4,065)

(3,686)

10,789

(21,639)

(10,850)

Houston

38,559

(1,835)

36,724

279,389

(89,222)

190,167

Indianapolis

11,747

(5,040)

6,707

113,378

(51,262)

62,116

Jacksonville

8,723

(3,955)

4,768

101,954

20,185

122,139

Kansas City

4,908

(3,495)

1,413

57,007

(34,481)

22,526

Las Vegas (*)

Los Angeles

(12,033)

(103,004)

(115,037)

(232,281)

(1,006,985)

(1,239,266)

Louisville

4,281

818

5,099

38,420

(9,798)

28,622

Memphis

5,986

(10,533)

(4,547)

49,979

(52,412)

(2,433)

Miami

(18,598)

(28,399)

(46,997)

31,551

(252,098)

(220,547)

Milwaukee

939

(7,382)

(6,443)

13,987

(86,392)

(72,405)

Minneapolis-St. Paul

1,179

(4,619)

(3,440)

61,162

(86,920)

(25,758)

Nashville

17,172

(547)

16,625

128,921

(19,094)

109,827

New Orleans

(2,520)

22,856

20,336

(72,561)

(233,021)

(305,582)

New York

(68,081)

(76,018)

(144,099)

(672,435)

(1,118,025)

(1,790,460)

Oklahoma City

5,707

(226)

5,481

42,399

(10,302)

32,097

Orlando

10,495

(7,342)

3,153

174,428

55,611

230,039

Philadelphia

(9,639)

(12,209)

(21,848)

36,553

(144,849)

(108,296)

Phoenix

22,614

28,463

51,077

117,550

411,697

529,247

Pittsburgh

1,169

(3,601)

(2,432)

5,221

(60,564)

(55,343)

Portland

10,641

7,355

17,996

106,163

(4,247)

101,916

Providence

(3,983)

(6,643)

(10,626)

(13,399)

(34,136)

(47,535)

Raleigh

6,030

23,238

29,268

35,263

132,769

168,032

Richmond

5,625

937

6,562

76,608

(4,095)

72,513

Riverside-San Bernardino (*)

Rochester

(425)

(3,325)

(3,750)

(7,121)

(36,181)

(43,302)

Sacramento

8,255

(3,731)

4,524

97,304

34,798

132,102

St. Louis

561

(6,253)

(5,692)

17,988

(57,090)

(39,102)

Salt Lake City

1,407

(1,164)

243

10,191

(41,646)

(31,455)

San Antonio

10,850

11,941

22,791

69,824

84,409

154,233

San Diego (*)

San Francisco

4,092

1,414

5,506

(269,093)

(80,543)

(349,636)

San Jose

(528)

(2,097)

(2,625)

(6,119)

(221,378)

(227,497)

Seattle

7,894

3,975

11,869

61,244

(38,132)

23,112

Tampa-St. Petersburg

8,610

(2,100)

6,510

169,346

91,106

260,452

Tucson (*)

Virginia Beach

(11,093)

(4,430)

(15,523)

7,486

(15,941)

(8,455)

Washington

(16,637)

(1,622)

(18,259)

(77,894)

(43,457)

(121,351)

Total

197,017

(313,875)

(116,858)

2,015,186

(4,645,051)

(2,629,865)

* Indicates no suburban county(ies)

Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data for county based metropolitan areas

There is a simple test that the reporters and the analysts can apply. When the cores experience net domestic migration gains and the suburbs experience net domestic migration losses, only then can it be claimed that people are moving to the cores are gaining at the expense of the suburbs. The reality is that between 2000 and 2008, there was not a single instance out of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population where there was suburban net out-migration and core county net in-migration. There was one case in 2008, but it was an anomaly. The suburbs of New Orleans lost a modest number of domestic migrants, while the city gained strongly. This occurred because people moved back to the city in large numbers, after more than half left due to Hurricane Katrina.

Spin can change perceptions, but not reality. People are not moving from the suburbs to the core cities. The reverse continues to be true, even in the worst of times.

Note 1: Excludes New Orleans due to significant population variations from Hurricane Katrina.

Note 2: Counties are the smallest jurisdiction for which the Bureau of the Census publishes migration data.

Comment viewing options

For decades, those who know best have been chronicling the death of the suburbs. In every new announcement of demographic data, they find evidence that people are “moving back” to the core cities, even though they never moved away. The watch anime online coverage of the latest Bureau of the Census city population estimates set a new standard. “Cities Grow at Suburb’s Expense During Recession” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News headlined “Census Shows read manga online Cities are Growing More Quickl

For decades, those who know best have been Ansatsu Kyoushitsu chronicling the death of the suburbs. In every new announcement of demographic data, they find evidence that people are “moving back” to the core cities, even though they never moved away. The coverage of the latest Bureau of the Census city population hunter x hunter anime watch estimates set a new standard. “Cities Grow at Suburb’s Expense During Recession” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News headlined “Census Shows Cities are Growing More Quickl

"A north-carolina Reverse Mortgage can help seniors who would like to stay in their home the financial security and piece of mind. In order to qualify for a reverse mortgage, a homeowner must be at least 62 years or older, live in their home, have enough equity in their home and the home be a qualified property type.

This is the most ridiculous article I've read regarding this topic. People are obviously moving back into the cities and inner cores. Anyone who lives in Washington, Arlington or Alexandria can confirm this. I live in the Court house neighborhood of north Arlington on the 20th floor of a high rise that was built in 2000. From my apartment, I can see 40 other high rises that were built within the last 10 years. The population within walking distance of the metro spots has exploded. I don't have any numbers to quantify this, but there is zero chance that the population growth can exceed that in the burbs. The same can be said for downtown D.C. Neighborhoods continue to be gentrified and people are moving back into the city. The 2010 census will confirm this trend. I don't have any manipulated numbers to confirm my observations, but it's very obvious that the population has exploded in the Arlington and downtown D.C within the last 10-20 years. His manipulated numbers way indicate otherwise because the poor are moving OUT of cities while highly skilled professionals move IN. This is very important because this trend suggests increased home values in the downtown and inner core, and seriously depressed values in the outer burbs. The fact that he doesn't touch on the increased crime in the burbs and decrease in the cities and inner core clearly shows his numbers aren't telling the whole story

It is clear that urban sprawl has reached a tipping point. Home prices far from inner cores without access to public transportation will deteriorate into slums within the next 25-50 years. The cost of transportation and inefficiencies of living in the suburbs will depress home values further. Most suburban communities are already experiencing increased crime, poverty, and budget shortfalls. This will continue to depress property values further. Single-family homes will be converted into multi-family apartments.

The fact that crime and poverty rates are increasing in the suburbs and decreasing in the city is a clear indication of the migration from the burbs to city, and vice versa. The author is completely clueless of the impeding massive exodus from the burbs..

When the home market crashed those that oppose the suburbs shouted for joy as the end of sprawl. People will no longer go to the outer edge to seek their space in characterless cookie-cutter subdivisions because they could not afford the combined house payments, nor the increased gas bill to fill their SUV(s). This new age of city dwellers in higher density communities close to the cities core (everybody does work in the core, don't they?) will stop greenhouse gases dead in their track - finally! Well, not so... The initial development of much of the suburban regions, especially in suburban middle class was characterless, dysfunctional, and lacking trails, walks, and services. However in the past decade there has been a shift, in some areas slowly, in others more agressive to create better suburban neighborhoods without over-densifying - creating a more desirable outer edge. In this next decade when the market recovers there will be even more of a shift attracting more urban dwellers outside the core cities.

As far as gas prices determining commute distance, thanks to the new CAFE rules, those 12MPG SUV(s) of the past will soon get twice the gas mileage, but more important is that families will choose much more efficient transportation to live on the edge, perhaps with 3 or 4 times the efficiency, thus if gas shoots up to $4 or $5 a gallon, their cost to commute will still be less than a few years ago.

Moving to the urban core more than likely means moving into an older home that will be much less efficient than a newer suburban home built in the 1990's or today. In fact there is legislation to emulate the CAFE for new homes, that if passed pretty much guarantees that a new suburban home would be far more efficient than an older urban home. Yes you could upgrade the older urban home, but to even get remotely close to the efficiency of a new suburban home means switching windows, HVAC, and tearing up the home to insulate the thin 4" walls ... a prospect that should set one back $50,000 or $33,000 after the tax credits apply. Payments and interest on this home improvement will take a very long time to pay back, if ever.

So the arguement for commute expense is weak... pay at the gas pumps (not true if they trade in the SUV, now aided by the proposed $4,500 tax credit being pushed through)... in return for monthly utility bills being $200 or more than that efficient suburban home or much more when the new legislation forces more efficient new homes. Yes gas at the pumps will go up, but it's probably matched by increasing home energy prices. And lastly those in the suburbs can always car pool, you can't house pool utility bills.

Another good article with lots of data. As someone who lives in the core city of Denver, I can tell you that the burbs will see higher growth for the foreseeable future.
1. Lower housing costs. Denver is 2x for comparable buildings.
2. Larger lot sizes. Denver is 8-10 to the acre.
3. Better schools. Denver's suck. Data show abysmal scores.
4. Newer buildings. Americans like new. Hate old.

@Arlington,

Good point. For example: San Diego. 370 square miles. Approximately equal to every city and town inside Route 128 around Boston. I exaggerate, but only slightly.

How many people who buy a 4 br home on 1 acre within the limits of Charlotte, Jacksonville, or San Jose feel that they are moving to the "core city"? They're choosing the same suburban lifestyle as someone in Marietta, San Mateo, or Newton.

A better way of classifying would be by density of census tracts, not by jurisdictional boundaries.